Rothschild Speaks....

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Link.

 

This article has some really interesting quotes for Rothschild.

 

On Jason Marquis:

 

"He just came down (to Florida) to throw and see what I thought and get some feedback," Rothschild said. "I watched and just told him what I thought, that's basically it. I knew he was a free agent, but at that time I didn't really know if we were going to sign him or not. It's just basically was him asking me, and I'm not going to say no because it's fun to work with guys and it wasn't going to hurt anybody, so it worked out well.

 

"He has been a big-innings guy and he had some nice years in St. Louis. He had 2 1/2 pretty good years and ran into a lot of problems the second half of last year."

 

 

It also appears, as was noted in the Down on the Farm session at the Convention, that Marmol is heading to the bullpen.

 

"Marmol is more of a reliever type, I think," Rothschild said. "You listen to what people think who have seen him quite a bit, and from what I saw last year, I think he got tired because he's a converted (position) player and hasn't pitched much at all so toward the end, his arm got tired and he looked like a different guy command-wise, stuff-wise, everything. You look at him in short spurts and he's got a chance to get good hitters out and he did it a couple times in relief when he first came up.

 

"Closer stuff will depend on command of the fastball because to me it's more important that you throw strikes than have good stuff."

 

On Wood, Prior, and Miller:

 

"I'm in contact quite a bit, I talk to the trainer about them a lot, I'll talk to them a couple times a week and see where they are and know what they're doing and go from there," Rothschild said. "We went to the winter thinking we've got to be covered and if they don't come back, we'll still be OK, which we did. Now if they are able to come back, in Mark's case more than Kerry's because we're looking at him as a starter, then it's a huge addition to our pitching staff that should already be pretty good. But they've got a lot of hurdles to jump over before I can tell if they're going to be a big part of what we're doing."

[DiamondMind]

So....have we decided if we like Rothschild or not, yet? :D

 

btw: anyone who watched marmol pitch once or twice could see he belongs in the pen

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm neutral on Rothschild right now. I'm not certain how much Dusty over-ruled him. I'll use this year to form a better opinion.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I'm neutral on Rothschild right now. I'm not certain how much Dusty over-ruled him. I'll use this year to form a better opinion.

I'm with you. I'm concerned, but I'm also curious to see how these guys react with a new manager. I'm also curious to see if Big Z throws as many pitches this year as he did last year.

[Guest]

"Closer stuff will depend on command of the fastball because to me it's more important that you throw strikes than have good stuff."

This is a unique perspective from the cubs...

[rawaction]

Marmol could have a Farnsworth type arm in short-inning stints. More appropriate comparison would probably be a smaller version of Francis Beltran, without the injury problems.

[CubinNY]

Marmol could have a Farnsworth type arm in short-inning stints. More appropriate comparison would probably be a smaller version of Francis Beltran, without the injury problems.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

[Banedon]

Similar to Vance, I just don't know what kind of overruling Dusty did over Larry...but right now from the things I've heard, I'm leaning toward cutting Larry some slack, which is something I wasn't willing to do at the end of the season last year.

[mg420]

Marmol could have a Farnsworth type arm in short-inning stints. More appropriate comparison would probably be a smaller version of Francis Beltran, without the injury problems.

 

marmols stuff kind of reminds me of dotel except for the 3/4 delivery.

[DiamondMind]

"Closer stuff will depend on command of the fastball because to me it's more important that you throw strikes than have good stuff."

This is a unique perspective from the cubs...

 

I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

 

Also, what can be said for the Cubs pitchers' assumed continued reliance on strikeouts - due to our also assumed crappy defense?

 

On Marmol: Not only was he converted into a pitcher, but he was converted from being a catcher. Yea, you obviously need to possess a strong arm to play behind the plate - but you aren't utilizing/strengthening your arm nearly as much as say, a SS or RF. Stick him in the pen!

[CubinNY]

"Closer stuff will depend on command of the fastball because to me it's more important that you throw strikes than have good stuff."

This is a unique perspective from the cubs...

 

I was waiting for someone to bring this up.

 

Also, what can be said for the Cubs pitchers' assumed continued reliance on strikeouts - due to our also assumed crappy defense?

 

I don't think they have much control over that. Some guys are strikeout pitchers. Strikeouts are a good thing but they can create high pitch counts. It's all about being efficient. I think it is better for a pitcher to go after the batter rather than nibble at the zone, that's when you get high pitch counts and walks. It's all about being effective within the strike zone.

 

The Cubs defense isn't crappy.

[DiamondMind]

It's all about being efficient.

 

Yep.

 

Oh, and yes - our defense is crappy. There's Lee...and...that's about it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's all about being efficient.

 

Yep.

 

Oh, and yes - our defense is crappy. There's Lee...and...that's about it.

 

Can't follow you there. We were 6th in defensive efficiency in '06, and 13th in '05 and '04.

[DiamondMind]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

[CubinNY]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

[DiamondMind]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

I knew I'd get a smarmy remark in about 15 seconds. I apologize for not basing my entire baseball opinion on numbers. So does every manager and coach in professional sports.

 

BTW, when did I attack anyone in this thread previous to your reply?

Edited January 29, 2007 by DiamondMind

[David]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

Even the most saber-inclined fan (myself included) will admit that there isn't a tried and true, reliable way to measure defensive ability yet for baseball players.

 

There are some decent metrics popping up, but nothing that's nearly as widely accepted or respected as some of the offensive metrics.

[DiamondMind]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

Even the most saber-inclined fan (myself included) will admit that there isn't a tried and true, reliable way to measure defensive ability yet for baseball players.

 

There are some decent metrics popping up, but nothing that's nearly as widely accepted as some of the offensive metrics.

 

You measure defensive ability by sitting on your butt watching games, not pouring over baseball prospectus efficiency ratings. Offensively, yea, I'll look at some stats. But defensively? Come on. There's variables out the wazoo.

 

Besides:

Cedeno: 23 errors

Jones: 7 errors (and many terrible runner-advancing throws)

Ramirez: 13 errors

Soriano: 11 errors

Even Zambrano: 4 errors

 

I don't even think range factor is applicable with half our team playing their 2nd or 3rd career positions.

 

Oh, and Barrett calls a crappy game.

Edited January 29, 2007 by DiamondMind

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

I knew I'd get a smarmy remark in about 15 seconds. I apologize for not basing my entire baseball opinion on numbers. So does every manager and coach in professional sports.

 

BTW, when did I attack anyone in this thread previous to your reply?

 

What DO you base your opinion off of then? State your case instead of just saying "Numbers, I don't like them". And tangentially, which is going to be more flawed, a defensive metric, or your recollection of all 30 teams defense/individual defensive reputation?

[CubColtPacer]

It's all about being efficient.

 

Yep.

 

Oh, and yes - our defense is crappy. There's Lee...and...that's about it.

 

Can't follow you there. We were 6th in defensive efficiency in '06, and 13th in '05 and '04.

 

I simply can't follow you there. In a sport like basketball, a team can have good team defense without having good individual defenders. In baseball, one must have good individual defenders to have a good team defense. Last year, the Cubs didn't really have it. Murton was average, Pagan was below average. Pierre and Jones were good at getting to the ball, and terrible at throwing. Ramirez was better, but still not great. Cedeno was below average. Neifi was very good at second, Theriot was average, and Bynum was terrible. At first, Walker, Mabry, and Nevin were average, with Lee being very good for his few games. Barrett was below average, while Blanco was above average but slipping. How can you have a significantly above average defense when there are very few plus defenders on the field?

 

Let's tackle this another way. The Cubs are ahead of the Cardinals last year. The question is-how can that be? Molina is much better than Barrett. Pujols is better than the Cubs first baseman that were there last year. Eckstein was better than Cedeno, and Rolen is better than Ramirez. The Cardinals OF defense isn't great, but they are probably about the level of the Cubs. With all these advantages-how does it turn out that the Cubs have a better defense than the Cardinals?

[DiamondMind]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

I knew I'd get a smarmy remark in about 15 seconds. I apologize for not basing my entire baseball opinion on numbers. So does every manager and coach in professional sports.

 

BTW, when did I attack anyone in this thread previous to your reply?

 

What DO you base your opinion off of then? State your case instead of just saying "Numbers, I don't like them". And tangentially, which is going to be more flawed, a defensive metric, or your recollection of all 30 teams defense/individual defensive reputation?

 

I'm really (trust me) not trying to be a smart a** - but yea, I do base it off my personal observations more than what a stat sheet says. For defense, anyway. And honestly? I'd wager most managers agree with me on that. Do I know that for sure? No, but it's my opinion.

[Guest]

Actually, I think think it is really, really hard to evaluate the defense of one individual. However, the rate at which an entire team converts balls in play into outs is a pretty simple and effective metric for measuring team defense.

 

Now, the big stinking caveat there is how much influence you believe pitching has upon that, which is another subject in itself. However, nobody will much argue that ground balls, line drives and fly balls (inside the park) all convert into hits at different rates.

 

Still, even with that caveat, defensive efficiency is a nice metric. I'd trust it over any non-professional scouting opinion of a team defense. And I'd trust it over the top of a lot of scouts if it is broken into its components. It's just not an end-all, be-all.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Tim

[DiamondMind]

 

Let's tackle this another way. The Cubs are ahead of the Cardinals last year. The question is-how can that be? Molina is much better than Barrett. Pujols is better than the Cubs first baseman that were there last year. Eckstein was better than Cedeno, and Rolen is better than Ramirez. The Cardinals OF defense isn't great, but they are probably about the level of the Cubs. With all these advantages-how does it turn out that the Cubs have a better defense than the Cardinals?

 

I couldn't have phrased this any better if I wanted to.

[DiamondMind]

Actually, I think think it is really, really hard to evaluate the defense of one individual. However, the rate at which an entire team converts balls in play into outs is a pretty simple and effective metric for measuring team defense.

 

Now, the big stinking caveat there is how much influence you believe pitching has upon that, which is another subject in itself. However, nobody will much argue that ground balls, line drives and fly balls (inside the park) all convert into hits at different rates.

 

Still, even with that caveat, defensive efficiency is a nice metric. I'd trust it over any non-professional scouting opinion of a team defense. And I'd trust it over the top of a lot of scouts if it is broken into its components. It's just not an end-all, be-all.

 

Ask Jason Marquis what he thinks about our outfielders when the seasons over.

[CubColtPacer]

Stats and numbers, numbers and stats.

 

I can't believe any chart that has the geriatric giants at #7, sorry. Where's the numerology for Jacque Jones being an idiot?

 

Then what do you base your opinon on, their astrological signs?

 

Even the most saber-inclined fan (myself included) will admit that there isn't a tried and true, reliable way to measure defensive ability yet for baseball players.

 

There are some decent metrics popping up, but nothing that's nearly as widely accepted or respected as some of the offensive metrics.

 

That's how I feel-the people are doing a good job at refining the defensive metrics, but they shouldn't really be seen as nearly as reliable as the offensive metrics just yet, and even the offensive metrics cannot account for quite everything (nothing ever really can put all the variables in correctly). They should be looked at and given weight, but given pause when looking at a thing like the Cubs defense that struggled mightily at times, especially in the 2nd half of the season.